44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, the member from the NDP keeps bringing up that they had these two amendments. This simply changed the definition but changes nothing in the act.
As well, my colleague is completely right. The second part of it is that it will leave a backdoor registry open that has no oversight whatsoever from committee, and the advisory council can put any gun they want on it. That is what Conservatives have been talking about all night. If there is one thing that we are not going to trust, it is the NDP coalition with the Liberals protecting law-abiding firearms owners.
What does my colleague think about that?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is exactly how the Liberal government governs. It will have legislation where the title sounds great out there in the public, but once one digs into it, there are a lot of concerns. The government will also add in something so that a lot of it will be determined through a back door or through regulation. We have seen this with many different pieces of legislation where, again, the title sounds good, but once the practicality of it plays out, one does not know what is actually included, because it is all in another process.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is of grave concern to me that the government has chosen to spend so much time on a piece of legislation that would do so very little to actually deal with the issue of crime in this country. Members might be asking why I am making that assertion. The reason I will make that assertion is that violent crime in this country is up 32%. Many members have talked about this and I think the government realizes this, so what the Liberals have decided to do is to say that they are taking action with this bill. The problem is that this bill actually would not take action where we need to take action. I will explain that a bit.
At the public safety committee, the Toronto deputy police chief said that 86% of guns used in crime are illegally smuggled from the United States. Therefore, what would this bill do with respect to the 86% of guns that are being smuggled across the border? If we were debating today what to do about that, I would say that it is something exceptionally worthwhile and something that Conservatives would be 100% behind. However, instead, we are debating a bill that would do absolutely nothing about it.
When we are facing this surge of crime across the country, including violent crime, gang crime and gun crime, how are we not focusing on the source of that gun crime? Eighty-six per cent of those guns are illegally smuggled across the border.
Let us look at that by analogy. If we are on a ship and the ship is taking on water and we have this giant hole where 86% of the water is coming in, does the captain say that we should look over here at these other little holes and see if there is something we can do about that? That is effectively what the approach of the current government is. It looks at where the real crime is happening, where the real problem is, and pretends it does not exist, and then tries to distract Canadians by saying these people over here and these people over here and with these types of guns are the problem, which of course they are not.
To go through the possession and acquisition of a firearm in this country is a pretty stringent process that includes background checks. This is not where the crime is coming from and yet this is where the government chooses to focus its attention. I would like to say I find it disappointing, but disappointing does not go nearly far enough.
What the government should be focusing on is how to stop these guns from coming across the border. That would be something on which I think every member on this side of the House can agree; though perhaps not the members from the government coalition on this side. They think that this bill is also the panacea to gun violence that is going on this country: to crack down on legal firearms owners who have to go through a rigorous process to acquire those guns and are actually not the ones who are committing crimes. This makes absolutely no sense to me. It is a government that is saying it is not going to do the hard work because the hard work is hard.
It would be hard. It would take incredible investment in resources, in guns and gangs task forces, in border security and in border control to make sure that we stop these guns from pouring across the border and being used to commit violent crimes. That would take a large strategy, a large investment and a lot of moving parts. One thing we know about the current government is that it is not good at dealing with complicated situations in this country. All we have to do is look at how the Liberals are handling the cost of living crisis in this country to know how they would handle this crisis. Why have the Liberals taken this approach?
They have taken this approach because it is an easy-sounding answer. They are going to crack down on guns. That is their slogan. They are cracking down on guns, and that is going to make Canadians safe.
It is a great sound bite, and we all know now that sound bites matter in the fast-paced world of news, the world of social media. It sounds good. They are cracking down on guns. Why are they not cracking down on the 86% of guns that are pouring across the border? I could ask my colleagues across the way that question all night long, and I doubt I would get anything that even resembles an answer.
The problem of their approach in not dealing with the guns coming across the border is that we end up with this surge of violent crime, with a 32% increase. When we break that down, that is 124,000 more violent crimes every single year as compared with 2015, the last time there was a Conservative government.
What they are doing with respect to violent crime and violent offenders is not working. That is a product of a whole bunch of things. It is a product of the Liberals' soft-on-crime approach. It is the product of reforming bail so that it is so easy to get out on bail. We know the disastrous consequences that we have seen as a result of that across this country.
Whether we look at police officers who have been killed in the line of duty or a family that had some of their members stabbed in a violent stabbing, this is the result of people who are out on bail. Why are they out on bail? It is because the government chose to reform bail in its soft-on-crime approach. It has led to a surge in violence across the country.
We might say that cannot be true. In fact, a study was looked at, and in Vancouver, 40 offenders committed 6,000 crimes in one year. We can think about that for a second. If all they did was keep those 40 people in jail, how many fewer crimes would be committed in Vancouver? However, the Liberals will not do it. I have no understanding of why they will not. It is their catch-and-release justice system.
With respect to guns, how on earth can they say that the answer to gun violence in this country is to try to take away firearms from farmers, hunters and indigenous people? It defies logic. It defies explanation. Quite frankly, it will do absolutely nothing to solve the problem. What we need is a massive change in how guns are dealt with in this country.
The border should be the focus. Guns and gangs task forces should be the focus. The focus should not be law-abiding firearms owners in the country, who have to go through an extensive process to acquire those firearms, to transport those firearms and to store those firearms. These are not the people who are the problem
The repeat violent offenders who are getting their weapons smuggled across the border are the problem, and these folks are just pretending that problem does not exist. It is a huge problem for me that we are taking up the time of the chamber and of the government to deal with a non-issue, not the real issue.
Why is the government not moving on guns and gangs? Why is it not moving on sealing the border to stop the avalanche of guns that are coming across?
1280 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member is just wrong.
He makes an assertion but does not care about the facts. He says that we are not doing anything at the borders. Last year, alone, there was 1,200 guns that were confiscated at the border and over 73,000 weapons. The member knows this because I raised this issue earlier. He just closes his eyes and pretends it did not happen, and he says something that is not true.
That is a theme in regard to this legislation. The Conservatives try to give the impression that we are going out and taking all the guns away from hunters, farmers and indigenous people. It is just not true.
Does the member not realize that espousing misinformation does a disservice to Canadians? Why does the Conservative Party continue to do it?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, if espousing misinformation is something that should not be done, the member should probably choose not to rise to ask questions.
Just because some guns were seized at the border does not mean the problem has been solved. Did the member not listen to the deputy police chief who recently said that 86% of the guns used to commit gun crimes in the city of Toronto were smuggled across the border?
You seized a couple of guns. Good for you. There are 86% more. Why are you not focusing on that instead of hunters?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 11:31:58 p.m.
- Watch
I would remind the member that he is to address questions and comments through the Chair and not the individual member. He has been here long enough to know that.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was going to compliment the member on his demeanour, and not being crazy like some of the Conservative intervenors have been this evening, but I think he is on the edge.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 11:32:22 p.m.
- Watch
I would remind the hon. member that we had a conversation about putting labels on individuals, so I think it best not to raise issues on a personal note but related to the debate itself.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, you are absolutely right about interventions and to make no inference to individuals.
The reality is, as the member well knows, there are no firearms that would be taken away as a result of Bill C-21. This has been a repeated question to the Conservatives tonight, and they have not been able to mention one firearm that is impacted.
They talk about what could happen one day. We are dealing with legislation, and we are dealing with facts. There is absolutely nothing to the Conservative allegations around that because those amendments, thanks to the NDP, were withdrawn, both G-4 and G-46.
He talked about criminal gangs in Vancouver. We have seen a tenfold increase in the Lower Mainland. He talked about the use of ghost guns, the untraceable weapons that law enforcement have been unable to combat because they do not have the legislation, the legal tools.
The Conservatives have been stalling by filibustering this bill. If the member is really sincere about combatting criminals, why will the Conservatives not adopt the provisions around ghost guns to combat these gangs and criminals?
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, if the member, in his power as the junior partner in the coalition, wants to carve all those sections out of this bill and bring it back to the House, we might be able to have a conversation.
What the member does not address in any of his questions is why the junior partner in this coalition is not pushing the government to deal with the 86% of guns that are smuggled across the border. Why does the member not use his influence with the government to get that done?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there have been a great number of things said in the House tonight about Bill C-21 that would have applied at one point or another in the evolution of the bill, but which are no longer true, so I think it is very important to stress that the airsoft gun issue is resolved.
The list of guns and the list of various types of weapons that were introduced midway through the process, and later aborted at clause-by-clause, as well as the work that has been done to resolve other aspects and the fact this bill deals with ghost guns are all things that need to be emphasized at this late hour.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think the challenge is that the Liberals are going to be able to classify other prohibited weapons as they go. This is from the government that said it would not raise the carbon tax above $65 a tonne, so I am not sure how we can trust what it is going to do with this firearms committee.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure tonight to speak to Bill C-21. Even though I represent an urban riding, I can say there is a lot of interest in that bill. Saskatchewan firearms owners are respectful; they are law-abiding citizens and many feel that the bill is simply an infringement on their rights.
When Bill C-21 came forward last fall, I was kind of hopeful it would include measures that would be tough on crime and crack down on illegal smuggled handguns, which are part of the 32% increase in violent crime since the current government took office eight years ago.
First off, I want to thank the grassroots movement in this country, like hunters, sport shooters, indigenous groups and farmers, who really are concerned about their livelihood. They are concerned about their sport, their culture and, above all, their public safety for pushing back against the Liberal Party's agenda.
Many amendments, as we know, came forward. Many were pushed aside by the government, as Conservatives on the public safety committee listened to the testimony and recognized the many flaws in Bill C-21. A major concern with the legislation, and we have heard it a lot tonight, is that it would target competitive sport shooters in such a way that it could lead to the demise of the sport.
The legislation would effectively mean that those who use lawfully obtained handguns to participate in internationally recognized sport would no longer be able to do so. The bill would outlaw competitive sport shooting, except for individuals who are already training for the Olympics. The amendment that was put forward by our party would have allowed members of the International Practical Shooting Confederation to continue to participate in their sport, but it was voted down.
I want to talk about my province of Saskatchewan, and I want to thank the leadership of the provincial government, because it is well ahead of the federal Liberals. Back in September 2021, the Province of Saskatchewan appointed its own chief firearms officer, proactively getting ahead of the Liberal government. Saskatchewan has several concerns with respect to Bill C-21, and the ability for the new legislation to be effectively implemented while supporting impacts on public safety.
I consulted with Robert Freberg. Many members know Mr. Freberg. He is the chief firearms officer for Saskatchewan, and I think he is nationally recognized as the expert in this field. Many of the initiatives in the legislation before us would rely heavily on both law enforcement and the ability for chief firearms officers across Canada to issue prohibitions, revocations and refusals of licence, and to be the primary resource to investigate public safety concerns related to firearms.
Mr. Freberg has told us that the Province of Saskatchewan has been so successful in this area, since the province has not only designated its own provincial chief firearms officer, but it has also established the provincial firearms office, which is currently supporting law enforcement efforts to deal with the illegal use and possession of firearms. This includes mental health; domestic abuse; criminal activities; and enhancing overall education, which is a big one, around safe storage and proper licensing.
The Firearms Act clearly states that Canada should negotiate a federal contribution agreement with the provincial CFOs, which has not occurred since Saskatchewan and its neighbouring province to the west, Alberta, actually took over CFO positions back in 2021.
The Province of Saskatchewan is currently funding 100% of the work currently being performed not only by Mr. Freberg, who is the chief firearms officer, but also by the entire office. It has also provided significant additional funding for the establishment of a new provincial firearms ballistics lab to assist with law enforcement on firearms involved in criminal investigations. This, I might add, is with no financial support, again, from the federal government.
Currently, it can take two years for results for exhibits that have been submitted by police to the federal ballistics lab for testing. This actually occurred after the RCMP closed several provincial labs, including the one in Saskatchewan, which previously supported those important law enforcement needs and initiatives. How could Bill C-21 be successful if the agencies responsible for the overall implementation and enforcement are not adequately funded and are now being asked to do much more with much less? I would say my province has spent over $9 million and is waiting for even a dime from the federal government to help it out. Let us keep in mind that we started a chief firearms office nearly a year and a half ago, because Saskatchewan did not trust the federal government.
Many of the announcements around the May 2020 order in council handgun ban and Bill C-21 have severely impacted the focus on the Canadian firearms program and its performance in the critical public safety investigations required, as they are now negatively impacting managing the fallout of excessive call volume from licensed firearms owners due to the hastily announced legislation that was put in place with absolutely no consultation or input from them. Many law-abiding firearms owners continue to experience lengthy delays, some actually over a year now, trying to simply renew or acquire a firearms licence. How can they stay in compliance or be properly licensed if they cannot even communicate with the Canadian firearms program due to the program now being fully inundated with call traffic?
The current handgun freeze and subsequent inability for law-abiding firearms owners to acquire or even transfer a handgun has significantly impacted not only public safety but also the financial investment and loss in value that these individuals in my province are now experiencing. If an individual should become deceased or even experience a health or financial issue that creates a situation where they would like to initiate a legal transfer to another licensed individual, today, they simply cannot do that. This results in the individual having to surrender the restricted firearms to the police for destruction, or having to engage the extremely limited scope of services for a very specialized licensed dealer or exporter.
Dealers can purchase, as we know. However, given that there is an extremely limited market for resale, they are unlikely ever to participate. There is no buyback program, as currently stated in the May 2020 OIC. Given that there would be no current provisions to ever grandfather the existing owners, as there previously were under the regulations in 12(6), which allowed for the transfer to still occur between licensed grandfathered individuals, there is a high likelihood that these current firearms could become diverted in some circumstances rather than staying registered and managed as they presently are.
1118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member could comment on the fact that firearms-related incidents in northern Saskatchewan went up by 75% from 2017 to 2021, or the fact that the shooting in The Danforth in Toronto was done with a gun that was stolen in Saskatchewan.
I guess it really comes down to a fundamental question: Who on earth, in this country, other than police or the military, needs a handgun?
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, most of these, if not all, are illegal firearms in northern Saskatchewan. We know that. A lot of the “tough on crime” that the Liberals have not done over the last eight years is now paying massive dividends in northern Saskatchewan, as the member talked about.
We are in trouble in northern Saskatchewan for a very good reason. It is because they are not tough on crime. We have seen many people, day in, day out, go into court who should be sentenced and are not. They get out and do the same tactics they did a week before, and this is part of the problem we have right now in northern Saskatchewan.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. He does a very effective job as vice-chair at the Canadian heritage committee, and often chairs our meetings. I appreciate his work. However, there are some things that need to be corrected from his speech.
First is the fact that there are no guns being removed as a result of Bill C-21. He knows that. Both the G-4 and G-46 amendments, because of NDP pressure, were withdrawn. That is fact number one.
Fact number two is that the emphasis of Bill C-21 is on ghost guns. Ghost guns have been a scourge of many parts of this country, with a tenfold increase in the lower mainland of British Columbia. This is something that law enforcement needs additional powers to combat. These are criminal gangs and criminals who are using these untraceable firearms. That is the focus of the bill, and that is something that he should be in favour of.
Third, he did mention sport shooters. This morning, I was surprised to see the Conservatives table an amendment to remove an exemption for sport shooters who are in the Olympics or the Paralympics. That is an exemption that we believe in because the NDP did table the amendment.
On the International Practical Shooting Confederation, we believe—
221 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 11:48:21 p.m.
- Watch
We have a point of order.
The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that it is against the rules of the House to mislead the House. The hon. member knows that he was approached by a hard-working, Conservative staff member, who asked him personally to understand that there was an administrative error made—
48 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 11:48:44 p.m.
- Watch
That is debate.
Order. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby and the hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin know these are points of debate, and it is not proper to be debating while I have the floor.
I would ask the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby to finish up.
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, why did Conservatives table this motion to remove the exemption—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
